Outreach Magazine announced the finalists for their Outreach Resource Awards in February of this year... and this year’s finalists included... Join the Movement: God Is Calling You to Change the World by Alvin L. Reid (Kregel 2007) in the Youth Outreach category.

I NEVER SIGNED THIS MANIFESTO

Dr. Ergun Mehmet Caner
President and Dean
Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School
Liberty University


Tuesday, May 13, 2008

In recent days, I became aware that my name is on the list of “Charter Signatories” for the Evangelical Manifesto (EM) (http://www.evangelicalmanifesto.com/sign.php).

There is only one problem.
I never signed it.

A few months ago, I was consulted by a member of the steering committee, and invited to read through a rough draft. At that time, I stated in an email that I felt the language concerning the forefathers of evangelicalism was too dismissive and too harsh. Men such as the founder of our University, Dr. Jerry Falwell, acted with courage in putting evangelical Christianity on the frontlines of the American dialogue.

I was saddened to read that this language was not changed.
Then I became angered by the tone of the presentation at the National Press Club (NPC).

I must state for the record, the EM does NOT reflect my position, and the speakers at the NPC do NOT reflect my position concerning the current state of Evangelicalism.

Even in the preface, I disagree fundamentally with a number of assumptions, namely, (1) that there is any confusion at what being evangelical means, and (2) that we stand in the tradition of the Protestant Reformation. First, I do not see any “confusion” concerning the term- we have always been clear what it means. We are conservatives who believe that Jesus alone is Lord, and the Bible is the only Word of God. The only confusion occurs when a non-evangelical wants to muddy the waters in order to become one of us, since we are such a large constituency.

Secondly, as a Baptist, I do not stand in the “Protestant” tradition. Historically Baptists are dissenters, and were hunted by many of the Reformers. I do not believe, as the longer version of the Manifesto reads, that “evangelical is synonymous with Protestant” (p. 10).

Further, reading the document sounds like an extended apology, and I do not apologize for the stance we have taken for decades: evangelicals are unapologetically and unabashedly pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-prayer. We believe that Christianity has been pushed out of the public square, and I do not believe such a “manifesto” will accomplish the aim of bringing prayer back in schools or rescuing the unborn. Simple logic states that standing for something requires standing against something else.

This was the genius of men such as Dr. Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, Tim LaHaye, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Adrian Rogers and others. They accepted the challenge of an unabashedly secular society without hesitation and without reservation. We are not “owned” by any political party, but we will stand with and for candidates that are for our values, and against those values that we see as unbiblical, such as homosexuality and abortion.

I absolutely stand against the tenor of the NPC meeting that seemed to distance itself from our forefathers in evangelicalism. Men such as James Dobson and Jerry Falwell stood for truth and righteousness. I not only thank God for these men, I believe we must carry on this fight. It is our duty to continue their stance, not run from it when criticism makes us unpopular. Popularity is not the goal of an evangelical; Converted souls in heaven are the ultimate goal. You do not change a culture by surrender. This is precisely what the document seems to do.

Thankfully, the aforementioned forefathers raised up a generation of men and women who continue to speak in the public square, and build great institutions that do the same. I shall continue to stand in the public square, without apology. I ask that my name be STRICKEN from the charter list of the Evangelical Manifesto. This is NOT a movement with which I am comfortable. I am more than happy to discuss these differences with any member of the EM body, either publicly or privately. My email is ecaner@liberty.edu.


Blessings,



DR. ERGUN M. CANER
President and Dean of The Seminary
LIBERTY Baptist THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AND GRADUATE SCHOOL
CN 2500 • 1971 University Blvd. Lynchburg, VA 24502
OFFICE: 434.592.4163 FAX: 434.522.0415

www.liberty.edu/LTS
www.erguncaner.com
ecaner@liberty.edu

Please be in earnest prayer for Pastor Forrest. On Sunday afternoon, Pastor Forrest left (flying his own plane) for North Carolina, a quick stop before going to a conference in Texas. He reached his destination in North Carolina; however, after leaving from there early Monday morning for Texas, we have learned that Pastor has not yet reached his destination at the time of this writing.

Everything humanly possibly is being done to locate Pastor’s whereabouts. We are, however, appealing to all of our church family to pray earnestly for God’s supernatural intervention. The new Worship Center is open for prayer and will remain so until further notice.

The Association of Baptists for World Evangelism is an independent mission agency that exists to serve local churches in the task of sending missionaries around the world. ABWE, with ministries in over 80 countries, services over 5,000 churches and 1,400 missionaries.

An Evangelical Manifesto is both a call to evangelicals for self-reflection on how they publicly engage in discussion and a reminder of what the term evangelical has meant for centuries before we hit the current cultural wars. About 80 theologians and evangelical leaders released the document as charter signatories. It contains an open invitation to all to consider signing on if they identify with the values of the document. The manifesto notes that evangelicalism is primarily a theological term.

Evangelicals are personally committed to their faith in Jesus. They seek to share that hope as good news about how God restores broken relationships with him and between people. They desire to live out such faith as spiritual experiences where God transforms them through forgiveness and fellowship. Such a faith is public and private. It touches on the entirety of life as sacred.

This understanding means that there is a broad scope of issues that concern evangelicals as they engage in a pluralistic public square. They prioritize these issues in diverse ways, some seeing certain issues as more central than others.

Is the manifesto the same old, same old? I think not. The document asks believer and non-believer alike to appreciate how we affect our social fabric by the way we engage. It then asks everyone, especially evangelical believers, to examine before God how we engage. One way to focus this discussion is to ask what evangelical meant long before the current cultural faceoff. This historical review provides perspective for thinking about that assessment.

This kind of self-assessment is always called for in a spiritual context and can be a very healthy exercise. At an individual level it is what “quiet times” are all about: Before God and the Word it involves asking if we are all we should be as we seek to reflect values that Scripture and Jesus teach. The manifesto is a public appeal to consciously enter into such reflection within our own community. It is the public nature of this personal and corporate-wide call that might be a cultural disconnect. No one is named on purpose. The spectrum includes everyone from the left to the right. So there is no effort to bash one side or another. If the shoe of criticism fits as one reflects on the values described, then the call is to reconsider what can and should be done to regain a better balance.

I signed the document because it stirred me to look at myself and the groups for which I am an advocate. I pondered anew before my Lord how I engage and contend for values in the public square, in terms of the scope of issues addressed, the tone, and especially how I treat those with whom I am in debate or dialogue.

By the way, there is biblical precedent for this. Prophets like Nehemiah and a host others at different times prayed corporately and called for such assessment by the entire believing community of their day.

Here is the question the manifesto raises: Can we/should we pause in self-reflection about how we engage as believer-citizens on issues of the day, both spiritual and political? The manifesto argues, “Yes, we should.”

Jesus has much to say about a whole host of issues beyond the ones that have been targeted over the last few decades, including the ones that have been discussed and defended (sometimes very well, sometimes not so well).

In addition and often missed in the early discussion of the document is this question: Does tone matter as much as content? I think so. To these questions the manifesto also calls for reflection.

What factors are at stake in such an assessment? Why does this matter? Among the stakes are: (1) the well-being of our society, (2) the authenticity of believers' claims to love God and one's neighbor, (3) the integration of those calls to love, (4) the central importance evangelicals give to the need for spiritual transformation to really grow into human maturity, as individuals and as a society, and (5) honoring God with a balanced, consistency between witness, truth, and life.

So how does one respond to such a call?

Simply resort to the previous style of confrontation? Probably not.

Claim that such a call for self-reflection and assessment “muddies the waters”? Don’t think so.

Concerned about a scorecard that asks who the call initially includes or excludes as charter signatories? Not ultimately relevant.

Do such critiques, though honestly made, really address the point when all, including the signers, are invited to ponder in silence? Not really.

Rather than simply dragging out the old labels and category concerns (liberal; conservative; centrist; Catholic; atheist; too ecumenical sounding, like the Evangelical and Catholics Together document; not enough women nor ethnics), can we ask what in the document is a problem or what is well said? Is it really a key concern to ask who was initially asked to sign a document that invites anyone to sign? Should we not ask instead if one should sign anew on to such an array of commitments? Should we not ask why or why not sign? Can or should one as a believer-citizen today engage with conviction for one’s values without doing things that fuel the present cultural war? Is this question worth asking and pondering?

The manifesto simply says emphatically, “Yes.” So that is the point. Pause and ponder anew what we evangelicals are truly called to do–and pray it be done with a balance that honors God, reflects the gospel, and loves our neighbor, even in the midst of serious debate. Is that point worth reaffirming with a signature no matter where we are on the evangelical spectrum? Is it? In other words, to reflect or not to reflect, that is the question.

To read and consider signing the document, go to www.evangelicalmanifesto.com

Dr. Darrell L. Bock is Research Professor of New Testament and Professor of Spiritual Development and Culture at Dallas Theological Seminary.

The removal of 462 children from the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) polygamist sect's Yearning for Zion (YFZ) ranch in Eldorado, Texas, by that state's Child Protective Services has raised important questions about separation of church and state and the First Amendment's "free exercise" protections. Americans believe fervently in the "unalienable" right to the "free exercise" of religious faith without interference from government. However, we also have a deep-seated interest in protecting children from abuse.

FLDS members proclaim that their sole desire, according to fldstruth.org, is "the privilege of worshipping God as guaranteed by the Constitution," yet the sect's members argue that the practice of their faith involves polygamy, which is illegal in every state in the Union...

What should Americans make of all this? How do we respect religious freedom while protecting children?...

We should be ever watchful for potential government encroachment on our inviolable First Amendment freedom protections. Relentless citizen vigilance is the best safeguard of our religious rights. But the potential for governmental abuse of religious freedom is just that -- potential. The evidence for sexual abuse of children in this case is substantial. In such circumstances the first concern must be protecting children from abuse -- just as Texas law instructs the legal system to do.

Is there the danger of a slippery slope? Could some government officials attempt to use the Eldorado case as a legal precedent to trample the freedoms of unpopular religious groups? Of course. That is precisely why Americans should monitor carefully the actions of Texas officials, make certain they do not exceed their authority or violate religious freedom guarantees and ultimately prove their case in court...

Like most Americans, I agree that the safety of children must always take priority in government's actions. That does not give government officials a blank check to use children's "welfare" as a subterfuge to justify governmental intrusion or to disrupt any practice it finds vaguely weird.

There is no more treasured language in America's collective heart than these 16 words: "Congress shall make no Law respecting an Establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." As invaluable to our heritage as these words are, they were never intended to exempt people from obeying generally applicable laws, which meet a compelling government interest, such as the ones prohibiting adult males from having sex with underage girls in or out of "spiritual" marriages.

To misconstrue the First Amendment's religious freedoms to grant such exemption would be to desecrate those time-honored words and the sacred freedoms they guarantee.

Mehta, an atheist, once held an unusual auction on eBay: the highest bidder could send Mehta to a church of his or her choice. The winner, who paid $504, asked Mehta to attend numerous churches, and this book comprises Mehta's responses to 15 worshipping communities, including such prominent megachurches as Houston's Second Baptist, Ted Haggard's New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., and Willow Creek in suburban Chicago.

The data tells us that a minority of Americans, and a smaller minority of Christians, are concerned that Christians are “too involved” in politics. The more liberal and secular one is, the more concerned you are—which is not surprising. But, the majority of Americans (and a large majority of Christians) do not share the concern that Christians are too involved in politics.

I am one who agrees that evangelicals need to be known for what we are for—showing and sharing the good news of Christ, not only just what we are against. But, in regards to public policy, it is a both/and, not either/or.

You cannot stand for justice and be told you cannot speak of Jesus, nor can you love God and His word and not care for unborn children, the abused, and social justice.

Christians need to speak prophetically to all parties, not be beholden to one. If evangelicals are seen as a voting bloc of the Republican Party, I am concerned. If Christians are told to leave their faith outside the public square, I am more concerned.

Religion will always be an issue in politics. However, as evangelicals we need to not try to moralize the unconverted-- our primary mission is to convert the immoral-- other sinners like us.